Author
Topic: Do you consider us like brothers? (Read 8229 times)

I'm a catholic who once tried to become orthodox but couldn't, due to physical reasons: I'm not Greek nor Russian.I'm Italian-Spanish and live in Uruguay, here the orthodox communities are tiny and don't seem to feel comfortable with foreigners. There isn't any convert here, believe it or not.I contacted a Greek priest and he wasn't interested. At least he was kind. (Maybe someone here knows my story).Three months have passed and I still can't believe what happened. I still have depression and sometimes I cry.It's good to see that in other places people can convert more or less easily, without many obstacles from the "native" orthodox. By the way, I saw on this forum that someone asked wether the Roman Church was a racist institution, well, I thought that the Orthodox Church was a xenophobic institution. But don't worry, now I know that's not true.Anyway, I'd like very much that somebody could answer that question.Do you call us catholics (sigh...) "brothers" or you call us "heretics", "infidels" etc?Just try to say yes or no, I don't care about primacy or theological issues.

In my case I say yes. The Orthodox are my brother Christians.Thank you

Do you call us catholics (sigh...) "brothers" or you call us "heretics", "infidels" etc?Just try to say yes or no, I don't care about primacy or theological issues.

I am a "cradle" Orthodox Christian.Buddhists are my brothers, Muslims are my brothers, Atheists are my brothers, Protestants are my brothers.....we are all descended from Adam and Eve and share a common blood, so yes, I call Roman and Eastern Catholics my brothers.A heretic is someone who knowingly believes and teaches something contrary to Orthodox Christian Dogma. So while I consider Roman and Eastern Catholicism to be "heresies", I don't consider most Roman and Eastern Catholics to be "heretics".

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

First I wanted to say that I am sorry that you had such a frustrating experience. Frankly, I am shocked that an Orthodox Priest would deny a fellow Christian a chance to learn about Orthodoxy and join the One True Church! How could this happen?!Anyway, I also (like my brother George) consider all humans to be my brother. Jesus Christ mixed with many "unsavory" people....He loves us all.

Yes. Strong yes! I completely agree with George and Juliana. Jesus loves us all.Here in USA all Canonical Orthodox jurisdictions are welcoming converts. In fact, all of them have some convert priests, even those who have very small number of parishes. There are a few Hierarchs in USA, who are converts.Would you mind if I will make one suggestion? I had an honor to meet His Grace Bishop Jeremiah, the ruling hierarch of Ukrainian Orthodox Diocese of South America — Ecumenical Patriarchate. He is a real servant of God. Bishop Jeremiah is and always has been very pro-mission and he brought many people to Orthodoxy. His diocese has parishes in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Venezuela. He lives in Brazil and often travels. Bishop Jeremiah is fluent in Spanish, English, Portuguese and Ukrainian. I do apologize, if I am making an inappropriate recommendation, but may be you may try to contact him regarding your interest in Orthodoxy.The link can be found here:http://www.ecclesia.com.br/eparquia/main.htm

I'm a catholic who once tried to become orthodox but couldn't, due to physical reasons: I'm not Greek nor Russian.I'm Italian-Spanish and live in Uruguay, here the orthodox communities are tiny and don't seem to feel comfortable with foreigners. There isn't any convert here, believe it or not.

<suspiro> SeÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â±or, ten piedad... :'(

Hermana (and yes, I feel I can call you that),

The Church finds itself waking up (slowly in many places) to the reality that She is not merely present on earth to preserve the existing, often ethnically-oriented communities that already comprise Her, but that She is present to reach out and accept those who would seek Her out, as well as seek out those who may not know of Her but need Her and Her Lord. I am truly sorry for the wall that has come up against you within the Church itself, though I would take comfort in the fact that your desire is in the right place--you want to be Orthodox, even though you can't officially be so right now due to others' weaknesses--so perhaps in the eyes of God, you have somehow been united to Him in His Church through economia and mercy. A possibility there.

ALL are my brothers and sisters. In Adam, that is. In Christ, not necessarily so. A Buddhist is my brother in Adam but not yet in Christ. A Protestant or Roman Catholic? I am not sure. Great Orthodox saints can be found on both sides of the issue. Is following Ruth's example an option for you? When Naomi decided to return to Palestine she was followed by Ruth who said "Let your people be my people and your God my God." Can you emigrate? Go to where Orthodoxy is more prominent?

Unfortunately, this problem does exist. I have had people tell me that they were turned down by Greek priests in the United States because the Balamand agreement said they had to. Whether this was the priest following an agreement that 99% of people think was a mistake, or whether it was just a copout, I don't know. Don't give up following the path that you think God has laid out for you, though.

Regarding brotherhood, I would agree with David H. We are all part of humanity, so we are all family. What's more, we are all made in the image of God, so we are all precious and important. However, in a Christian sense, brotherhood takes on a different meaning since it implies adoption into the family of God. I'm not in a position to say either way regarding the Christian sense, but I do think that the distinction is an important one, and one often forgotten (by some who want to be theological push overs because everyone is a brother, and by others who want to attack people because they are not "true brothers").

I'm really sorry about what you are going through. Hang in there, keep praying and God will help you. Maybe God is going to open the door for many others because of what you have experienced. Please don't give up if you want to become Orthodox.

I also want to say that I attend a GOC, and am not Greek. (i live in the USA). The Priest has been so welcoming from the beginning. Whenever I bring up in converstion a subject about my not being Greek, and wonder if it'll ever be a problem, he puts it to rest. I find he is so open and welcoming, that I wonder why I ever doubted. Did the Priest from the GOC (you spoke with) give you reasons, specific ones?

'Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Who are everywhere present andfilling all things'

God is everywhere, filling all and in all, including in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as well as other creeds and beliefs. Hatred of one's neighbour, be they Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Buddhist is inconsonent with Orthodox Teachings, so of course we consider you our Brother. Hopefully one day the devistating and tragic schism between our two Churches will be healed and such petty arguments and distinctions and polemics between the Eastern and Western Churches will be overcome, and we will become one administratively, reflecting the spiritual unity of all Christians.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Thanks to you all, people.Of course I know we are all sons of God and that makes us brothers. I asked that because, you know what? While Christians are disputing, muslims are winning. Shias and sunnis are always at war, but in situations like the current one, they are all united, they are all brothers and all of them enter the same mosques. It made me think. Shame on us indeed!

About your question Irene: no, no reasons at all. Here's my brief story.I asked the Patriarchate via email if a non-Greek could join the Church. They sent me the priest's adress and phone number. One day I called him and he did nothing but repeating "oh yes, yes, whenever you want you call me, then we choose a day and I'll say a few words and you will be orthodox".I was immensely happy, but soon realized that he said nothing about baptizing, so the next day I called him again to ask about that. He said there was no problem and again he repeated the same words "you call me when you want, you come to the church and we will talk, etc". He was very gentle.I asked if I could go the next sunday (it was tuesday). He said yes.That sunday I went to the church to meet him after the mass. We shook hands and he... said in a hurry "yes, yes, whenever you want, you call me and then you come and we will talk". I was saddened and breathless, but asked him this question: Do you think that I'm not sure or not prepared for my choice? He nodded rapidly and repeated... again... " You call me (...)"And he stood there in silence, with a little smile. Kinda impatient. I shook his hand smiling back and said thanks. The meeting lasted more or less 1 minute.At home my mom told me that he was just being polite. Get that?

To Starlight: Thank you very much for your recommendation, but I don't know. I had chosen the Greek Church because I thought there was a strong relationship between the roman ancestry and the Greek cultural heritage. And well, I felt like an extraterrestrial. If this happened with a cultural relative, what would happen with a Slav? I'm afraid of that! His Grace may be a good Christian who sees beyond ethnicity, but when you experince discrimination you feel wounded and you don't want to take chances anymore. And not only wounded, you also feel ridiculous. Some relatives told me that I shouldn't go around looking for "weird things". Sorry 'bout that. (that's what you got when you live in a diluted catholic/lay society like mine! ).DavidH, this is however my beloved country, although yes I have thought about migrating.Bye! Gracias querido Pedro por sus palabras. Thanks to you all folks!

I'm not sure what to make of your experience, but given that it wasn't a satisfactory one, I think I have to say it's an unfortunate one.

As for the supposed cultural kinship between Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy as opposed to some other Orthodox Church... I think you're mistaken. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the two were in any way "culturally" similar (in fact that ended well before the "great schism" of 1054.) Instead of concentrating on something like this, you'd be better simply finding an Orthodox Church where you'll be able to be received properly and become "just another parishoner". I don't know exactly where you are, but I doubt the Greeks are the only option.

This experience reminds me of something I was meaning to ask. I was talking to an Anglican priest who converted from Baptist several years ago. He said he considered Orthodoxy and RC as well. When he talked to Orthodox priests about converting, they told him that, as a Baptist pastor, he needed to start by reconciling with his bishop. He was confused, because Baptists don't have bishops, but they explained that they meant the Bishop of Rome--that he needed to reconcile first with the Pope, then they could work together toward reconciliation with the East. This sounds weird to me. I mean, I can see in some ideal sense that this should be the path to healing the West--but I'd never heard before of Orthodox giving this kind of reply to someone's personal interest in converting.

Is it possible that they misunderstood what he was asking for? Or that he misunderstood what they were addressing with their answer? Or does this actually sound like something they might really have said and meant?

Or does this actually sound like something they might really have said and meant?

It's very possible. And unfortunate. It is what happens when the type of ecumenism that GIC spit out above is actually believed and applied in the real world. People respond badly to ecumenism, and the defenders of ecumenism say "Oh, come on, it's not as bad as all that!" Sometimes, it really is as bad as traditionalists say. And it is sincere seekers, looking to follow the will of God, who are the ones getting hurt.

I've been thinking about this a lot today, and if it happened for the wrong reasons, then I am so sorry.

But, is there a possibility the priest didn't quite understand? I've never heard of a situation where you meet, and then become Orthodox. You meet, study, attend services, etc....and when the time is right, you become Orthodox. Could it be he didn't understand? Is his english good?Also, it sounds like it was a hectic time to talk. I just say, hi, how are you, etc...and move on very quickly when there are people about the priest. He just doesn't have the time to talk too long to one person, because the line would be held up. If I need time with the priest, I either email, or call, and we meet one on one.

Well, those are my thoughts anyway. ie: Did he understand exactly what you meant, and did he have the proper opportunity to really respond?

Don't give up with a name like Yours! There are some clergy whose behaviior is somewhat cranky. One priest told potential converts to stay in their own church and even redirect Orthodox to local churchs, when he couldn't serve liturgy in that town. We are all brethren so it doesn't matter what you believe.

This experience reminds me of something I was meaning to ask. I was talking to an Anglican priest who converted from Baptist several years ago. He said he considered Orthodoxy and RC as well. When he talked to Orthodox priests about converting, they told him that, as a Baptist pastor, he needed to start by reconciling with his bishop. He was confused, because Baptists don't have bishops, but they explained that they meant the Bishop of Rome--that he needed to reconcile first with the Pope, then they could work together toward reconciliation with the East. This sounds weird to me. I mean, I can see in some ideal sense that this should be the path to healing the West--but I'd never heard before of Orthodox giving this kind of reply to someone's personal interest in converting.

Is it possible that they misunderstood what he was asking for? Or that he misunderstood what they were addressing with their answer? Or does this actually sound like something they might really have said and meant?

I would presume that, generally speaking, such an answer would only be given if he wanted to be received in holy orders. To receive a protestant as a priest we would, generally speaking, expect them to reconcile with Rome, thus validating their ordination. To be received as a layman, this probably wouldn't be expected.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Or if the response is, 'why in the world would you want to become Orthodox?' (people have received that response).

If someone is earnestly following their heart, and they finally get up the courage to inquire,.... and aren't felt very welcomed, well, i just wonder how many gave up.....thankfully, there are many more priests out there who are welcoming to the ones who aren't.

I would presume that, generally speaking, such an answer would only be given if he wanted to be received in holy orders. To receive a protestant as a priest we would, generally speaking, expect them to reconcile with Rome, thus validating their ordination. To be received as a layman, this probably wouldn't be expected.

But this really makes no sense whatsoever. It is about theology, belief and praxis. Belief: Do they really want to become Orthdox because they believe it to be true? Theology: do they know or have they adequately studied Orthodox theology? Praxis: do they know about Orthodox life and how to function as an Orthodox priest? If they were never Roman Catholic, then there is nothing to reconcile with them. I've been to RC services about a half dozen times in my life, as I was never Roman Catholic. I was Chrismated by His Beatitude Met. Phillip when I was 12 and it will be 20 years now next year. Just because I'm a white American of western European descent doesn't mean I have anything to do with Rome. Did YOU 'reconcile with Rome' when/before you converted?

Remember you are not Orthodox for the Priest or the people at the Church. You are Orthodox for the Lord Jesus Christ. So try and look past all the human failings, and follow God by any and all means.

As far Catholics being my brothers. I don't know how I feel yet exactly about the issue. Sorry.

Logged

"Do what you want in order to send me as soon as possible from this transient life to eternal life. I am Christ's slave, I follow Christ, for Christ I die that I may live with Him!" - St. John of Decapolis before his martyrdom at the hands of the Turkish Muslims.

If they were never Roman Catholic, then there is nothing to reconcile with them.

Not knowing the original situation it is hard to commnet, but here is a possible spin...

I've come a few Orthodox that are converts from Evangical Protestantism that are rabidly anti-Catholic in the style of Protestantism. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ They still talk about them Papists worshiping Mary, statues and those rosary beads. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ They are very nervous about the concept of monasticism, even the concept of obedience and an hierarchy makes them uneasy. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Essentially they are still protestants that decorate their house with icons now... Maybe this is what was being spoken of - to overcome first this deep hatred of Rome and Catholic things. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ At the end of the day Catholicism isn't that far from Orthodoxy in many ways, so I question the sincerity of former Protestants that deeply hate Catholicism for its Catholicness yet are converts to Orthodoxy. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡

Most likely not the case, but I thought I'd throw it out there. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡

Victoria,I understand your concerns. Regarding the baptism. Orthodox Church does not re-baptize Roman Catholics. But for the conversion some time is needed anyway. Indeed, that priest mentioned to you continuation of communication.I have great opinion about Greeks. I visited many Greek churches. Actually I used to belong to Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain during my temporary residence in UK. The reason, why I recommended Bishop Jeremiah — he knows the situation and will be able to provide clear suggestion. If you would feel more comfortable, may be you can contact His Eminence Metropolitan Tarasios, the ruling hierarch of Greek Orthodox Diocese of Buenos Aires and South America. http://www.ecclesia.com.br/a_igreja_ortodoxa/arquid_grega/main.htmWhile I had only an opportunity to talk to him very briefly (which created a great impression anyway), I heard excellent things about him from others. Before he used to be the Chief Archdeacon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He really enjoyed helping in various matters Orthodox clergy, both Greek and non-Greek, who were visiting Turkey. Also, I observed myself his interactions with others and I could see how nice, warm and welcoming he was to everyone.You would not have any language issues with Metropolitan Tarasios. As I have been informed, he speaks at least English, Greek, Spanish and Turkish.As some others said here, please do not give up. Please! Both these hierarchs look beyond ethnic borders. Please look at the list of the clergy of both Greek and Ukrainian dioceses at that web site. You will see how many last names are not from “usually” Orthodox ethnicities. I hope this will be encouraging.May God help you!

But this really makes no sense whatsoever.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It is about theology, belief and praxis.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Belief:ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Do they really want to become Orthdox because they believe it to be true?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Theology:ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ do they know or have they adequately studied Orthodox theology?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Praxis:ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ do they know about Orthodox life and how to function as an Orthodox priest?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ If they were never Roman Catholic, then there is nothing to reconcile with them.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ I've been to RC services about a half dozen times in my life, as I was never Roman Catholic.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ I was Chrismated by His Beatitude Met. Phillip when I was 12 and it will be 20 years now next year.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Just because I'm a white American of western European descent doesn't mean I have anything to do with Rome.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Did YOU 'reconcile with Rome' when/before you converted?

For all intensive purposes we are one Church with our Catholic Brethren, there has simply been an unfortunate squable with their hierarchy that will hopefully be soon resolved. Perhaps we should take this into mind and at least not accept converts from Roman Catholicism, out of resect for our similarities and for their posistion as the Canonical Western Church.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

it does hit me as odd sometimes, that the rc and the orthodox are reciting the same line each week...belief in the catholic church, during the creed. i wonder what God thinks. isn't this what he dislikes? saying one thing, doing the other?

For all intensive purposes we are one Church with our Catholic Brethren, there has simply been an unfortunate squable with their hierarchy that will hopefully be soon resolved. Perhaps we should take this into mind and at least not accept converts from Roman Catholicism, out of resect for our similarities and for their posistion as the Canonical Western Church.

That would be difficult, given that they are not the canonical western church. Such nonsense demonstrates a pitiable lack of understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology. Its good that, at least from my experience, this dangerously ecumenistic mindset is dying in the church and a commitment to genuine missionary ecumenism is gaining hold. Even Father Schmemann, I would venture to guess, would find this position extreme and, in fact, heretical.

...and just to nitpick a little, the phrase is "for all intents and purposes."

Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!

Thanks again, people. The situation is quite difficult here for the lack of opportunities, so it's ok, because in the end it doesn't matter. Christ is waiting for all, we will reunite with him anyway. One should not complaint for some earthly inconvenients.

Anyway: you're so lucky!!!!

P.S. Augustine, my God... when I was talking about Romans and Greeks I meant the common people themselves! My Roman ancestors: men, women, you know, centurions, gladiators, peasants, etc. I wasn't talking about the Churches! Romans brought the Hellenic culture throughout their empire, that's why I thought we shared a common history.

For all intensive purposes we are one Church with our Catholic Brethren, there has simply been an unfortunate squable with their hierarchy that will hopefully be soon resolved. Perhaps we should take this into mind and at least not accept converts from Roman Catholicism, out of resect for our similarities and for their posistion as the Canonical Western Church.

Good thing my Priest didn't think like you, myself coming out of the Catholic Church. He even "re"-baptised me! *scary music playing*

Logged

"All this indignation have I hurled, At the pretending part of the proud world. Who, swollen with selfish vanity devise: false freedoms, holy cheats, and formal lies, Over their fellow slaves to tyrannize." - John Wilmot

Perhaps we should take this into mind and at least not accept converts from Roman Catholicism, out of resect for our similarities and for their posistion as the Canonical Western Church.

You would keep those who by grace desire to live in the fullness of the Christian faith? That faith, with its practices, which is the living out of that which is scriptural and in line with Holy Tradition. Do you know what burden you would place on us? I don't even think it is one Christ Himself would place on our shoulders.

You would keep us bound to that man made liturgy of 1970 and burden us with an ecclesiology that is clearly heterodox? If so, you would bind us to practices that lead us not to Christ but to relativism, indifference and egoism. There are not enough similarities to even entertain for one minute what you propose.

What you propose is nothing short of denying life giving water to the spiritually dead. I know, because I was there.

Regards,Douglas (Convert to Holy Orthodoxy)

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

That would be difficult, given that they are not the canonical western church. Such nonsense demonstrates a pitiable lack of understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology. Its good that, at least from my experience, this dangerously ecumenistic mindset is dying in the church and a commitment to genuine missionary ecumenism is gaining hold. Even Father Schmemann, I would venture to guess, would find this position extreme and, in fact, heretical.

But they are the Canonical Western Church, they have that right Established by the Oecumenical Synods, a right and authority that can only be revoked by a subsequent Oecumenical Synod, not by any Patriarchal or Endimousa Synod. The fact of the matter is, until the 8th Oecumenical Synod is Summoned, and Rome Anathematized, which I dont see happening in the near future, they are the Legitimate and Canonical Western Church.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8125.msg106495#msg106495 date=1139354338]GiC. YOU ARE NOT GREEK. YOU ARE A CONVERT TO ORTHODOXY. PLEASE FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE AND RECONCILLE WITH THE ROMAN CHURCH. [/quote]

All liturgies are man made if you go back far enough. And the Novus Ordo Mass was hardly made from scratch in the 70's.

A minor administrative squabble that is for the bishops to work out on their own time.

You know quite well what is meant by "man made". The Novus Ordo Missae, instituted on the first Sunday of Advent in 1970 and forced down the throat of gullible catholics, was put together by a committee headed the notorious Cardinal Bugnini (a Mason) and a group of liturgical revisionists which included six protestants. Bugnini himself admitted that the NO was put together to make Roman Catholicism palatable to the protestants.

Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

If you can in any way favorably compare the Novus Ordo Missae to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chyrsosotom then I am surprised you are Orthodox. After all, who would want to stand for the good part of two hours when you can get the cheap grace 20 minute special?

In a spirit of charity, I will not respond to your second comment.

Regards.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2006, 08:08:45 PM by Carpatho-Rusyn »

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

All liturgies are man made if you go back far enough. And the Novus Ordo Mass was hardly made from scratch in the 70's.

Justin, one of the first apologists of the Christian faith, himself born shortly after the Apostles, gives an account of his faith and of the practice of the Christians of his time. He describes in detail the celebration of the Eucharist as it was conducted, and claims that these details are what the Lord Himself ordered His disciples to follow.

The account of the Liturgy described by Justin witnesses to the details of the Sacred Supper of the Lord and harmonizes with the details of the Breaking of the Bread by the Apostles. It is this same Liturgy of the first Christians that Clement of Rome describes and which the Church kept faithfully and transmitted in all its integrity. It is from this Liturgy that the Byzantine Liturgy derives and has its origin.

The same cannot be said of the Novus Ordo Missae. The sentiment expressed above is one of the key pieces that drew me to Orthodoxy. The point is to set the captives free, not keep them bound as you would do.

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

I am assuming you are referring to a hierarchal Divine Liturgy, or perhaps are including the Matins service onto the DL?

In my experience the DL (by itself) lasts about an hour and twenty minutes, give or take.

A 20 minute Mass? One can only assume you are referring to daily Masses, where portions of the Mass are "edited" out. I don't see how a 20 minute Mass would fly on a Saturday evening or Sunday Mass...

MY weekly DL averages 1 hour 45...but who's nitpicking?

Sadly, I have witnessed too many blue jean saturday night specials. Don't want to keep them waiting! My aunt a so-called "extraordinary minister of the eucharist" or whatever they are called now dosen't understand how only one person (the priest) can distribute the Eucharist at DL. She proudly tells me that the priest and 4 others distribute the Eucharist at her catholic church. Why? Because "we can't have people waithing around just to receive communion".

And yes, editing out and week to week novelties are epidemic.

This is what the prior poster would have those Catholics who seek out Orthodoxy bound to?

« Last Edit: February 07, 2006, 08:36:25 PM by Carpatho-Rusyn »

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Why? Because "we can't have people waithing around just to receive communion".

We had a solution to that at one point, large numbers of bishops, priests, and deakons serving the eucharist...unfortunately most our parishes are stuck with only a priest or two to serve the eucharist, but the goa has been considering a solution, ordaining influential members of the community to the permanente deaconate, essentially allowing them to serve as eucharistic ministers.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I suppose it depends on where you're located, but to be sure there are priests around who offer a dignified Mass.

Insofar as the casual dress is concerned, I've witnessed this at a few Orthodox churches I've been to, but what can ya do?

Sure, people could take the extra time to dress up for church, but I guess it's good that they even bother to show up for church at all.

Now, in regards to the EEM's; I agree that having a squad of them when the amount of communicants do not call for it - no doubt! Bu when it comes down to a liturgy where there are several hundred communicants, no deacons to distribute the Gifts and just one priest...

We had a solution to that at one point, large numbers of bishops, priests, and deakons serving the eucharist...unfortunately most our parishes are stuck with only a priest or two to serve the eucharist, but the goa has been considering a solution, ordaining influential members of the community to the permanente deaconate, essentially allowing them to serve as eucharistic ministers.

God forbid we're late for brunch.

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

For all intensive purposes we are one Church with our Catholic Brethren, there has simply been an unfortunate squable with their hierarchy that will hopefully be soon resolved. Perhaps we should take this into mind and at least not accept converts from Roman Catholicism, out of resect for our similarities and for their posistion as the Canonical Western Church.

Instead of our meandering into all these side discussions I really would like to know:

Do you really believe that?

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8125.msg106495#msg106495 date=1139354338]GiC. YOU ARE NOT GREEK. YOU ARE A CONVERT TO ORTHODOXY. PLEASE FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE AND RECONCILLE WITH THE ROMAN CHURCH. [/quote]

Charity at its finest.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Perhaps we should take this into mind and at least not accept converts from Roman Catholicism

You call others to be charitable, as if your statement above showed any charity or understanding. You refuse to clarify or defend your statement or answer any queries regarding it. Probably because it is totally inexplicable or defensible. So, in the name of charity, I will let the matter drop here. Running in circles makes me dizzy.

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

I find little to no point in arguing with greekischristian. With almost every post he makes here, he demeans or shows contempt for traditional Orthodox piety and worship. He even referred to parishes where the women wear head coverings as "cultish" because they don't mesh or fit in with our "modern western society," as if modern western society was something to be proud of or emulated.

Quite frankly, I think the suggestion that he join the Roman Church is well stated. The Orthodox Church does not, as made clear by words of the Patriarch in the Phanar of which he is a "secret agent," regard the Roman See as the canonical western church and has not since 1054. One does not gain ecclesial authority by virtue of being in a certain place, but by adherence to the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic faith, and Rome does not fully adhere to that faith. That is not my stance, but the stance of the Holy Orthodox Church. He is perfectly entitled to his own beliefs (which apparently even he is unclear about), but to present himself as some sort of spokesman or expert on Orthodoxy is laughable.

I mean no disrespect when I say, why don't you join the Roman Catholic Church, given your view of her? You clearly do not see the Holy Orthodox Church according to her own self-understanding, so why tarry?

Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!

You call others to be charitable, as if your statement above showed any charity or understanding.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ You refuse to clarify or defend your statement or answer any queries regarding it. Probably because it is totally inexplicable or defensible. So, in the name of charity, I will let the matter drop here. Running in circles makes me dizzy.

First of all, I didn't call anyone to be charitable, cleveland did, secondly I responded to your two great objections to my statement, a) you dont think the novus ordo mass is 'traditonal' enough, from what I understand of it it's quite traditional with one of the Eucharistic prayers being almost the equivalent of traditional catholic mass, and the other three being historical reconsturctions...and b) you disagree with Catholic ecclesiology, and I pointed out that this is of little consequence save for the formal relationships of the bishops to each other, and while it may be enough to prevent administrative communion, it is not enought to prevent spiritual communion

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I find little to no point in arguing with greekischristian. With almost every post he makes here, he demeans or shows contempt for traditional Orthodox piety and worship. He even referred to parishes where the women wear head coverings as "cultish" because they don't mesh or fit in with our "modern western society," as if modern western society was something to be proud of or emulated.

Are you sure I refered to them as 'cultish'? I usually use the adjective 'cultic,' but maybe you're right, I can't properly remember my exact post.

Quote

Quite frankly, I think the suggestion that he join the Roman Church is well stated. The Orthodox Church does not, as made clear by words of the Patriarch in the Phanar of which he is a "secret agent," regard the Roman See as the canonical western church and has not since 1054.

But far more charitable things have been said about Rome by our Patriarchs that you seem to be willing to admit, ever hear or read anything from His All-Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras, of Most Blessed Memory, on the subject? I may be advocating a posistion slightly more tolerant than most, but it's hardly on the fringe.

Quote

but to present himself as some sort of spokesman or expert on Orthodoxy is laughable.

I dont believe I have presented myself as a spokesman of Orthodoxy, my statements carry as much weight as the arguments that back them up, and quite frankly speaking that's all the weight anyone's statements here carry.

Quote

I mean no disrespect when I say, why don't you join the Roman Catholic Church,

right...

Quote

given your view of her? You clearly do not see the Holy Orthodox Church according to her own self-understanding, so why tarry?

Because I'm the 'Secret Agent for the Phanar' not the 'Secret Agent for the Vatican.'

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Excellent advice. The article clearly points our that our differences are more than just "administrative" misunderstandings to be solved by good hearted ecclesiastics. With the presence of a RC hierarchy which is so clearly enamored of the so-called Vatican II reforms, unity is clearly a long way away. Even those who admit that many of the 'reforms' were not in keeping with the 'spirit of Vatican II', i.e, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, I do not see one thing in Hopko's article that Rome would concede.

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

I stand corrected on that point. However, I stand by all that followed.

Quote

you disagree with Catholic ecclesiology, and I pointed out that this is of little consequence save for the formal relationships of the bishops to each other, and while it may be enough to prevent administrative communion, it is not enought to prevent spiritual communion

And just how do you define "spirtual communion"?

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Just my two cents, but it seems like this thread is taking on a life of its own, and isn't all that charitable.If someone were wondering about Orthodoxy, they might get scared away. Seems like a lot of one ups.

But far more charitable things have been said about Rome by our Patriarchs that you seem to be willing to admit, ever hear or read anything from His All-Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras, of Most Blessed Memory, on the subject? I may be advocating a posistion slightly more tolerant than most, but it's hardly on the fringe.

Firstly, I must apologize for the sarcastic and nasty nature of my last post. I hope you will forgive me.

And I have read much of the positive things which have been stated about the Roman Church by our hierarchs and theologians. Hierarchs and theologians, however, cannot change anything on their own; they need the consent of the whole church. I, for myself, admire a great many things about the Roman Church, as I do the Oriental Orthodox Church. I was pleased, for example, when our priest prayed in the liturgy for the repose of the soul of "John Paul II, Pope of Rome," even though such an action is uncanonical, for it was done in a spirit of love and humility.

I do not back away from my position that to say the Church of Rome is the "canonical western church" is a fringe position, however. It is a church that subsides both in heresy and schism, which makes the work of evangelism even more important then ecumenism. Our work should be to bring the Roman See back into the fullness of the orthodox catholic faith, not merely re-establish administrative unity. As Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople said, "When the Pope of Rome professes the orthodox faith, there will be unity."

Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!

Thank you amnesiac for correcting your tone on your own. Guys please remember that this forum is the Convert Forum and please try to tone down polemics and passions to clearly present the faith in a positive tone to new converts and those inquirors seeking basic information and enlightment about all the ranges of orthodox belief and practices. If you have a problem with one jurisdictions practices versus another may I suggest that the Faith Forum or free-for-all or one of the new private discussion forums now available would be more appropriate and free-wheeling with less damage to those seeking basic information and adjustment to their new convert status.

Thank you amnesiac for correcting your tone on your own. Guys please remember that this forum is the Convert Forum and please try to tone down polemics and passions to clearly present the faith in a positive tone to new converts and those inquirors seeking basic information and enlightment about all the ranges of orthodox belief and practices. If you have a problem with one jurisdictions practices versus another may I suggest that the Faith Forum or free-for-all or one of the new private discussion forums now available would be more appropriate and free-wheeling with less damage to those seeking basic information and adjustment to their new convert status.

In Christ,Thomas

Brother Moderator,

The problem was NOT over "one juridictions practice versus another." It was rather, the position of one particular member who claimed that perhaps the Orthodox Church should have a moritorium on accepting Roman Catholic converts. This is presenting the faith in a positive tone? Does it provide enlightenmnent about the range of Orthodox faith and practice? In my opinion it did not. As I myself am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, the member, in my opinon, had to be challenged. While I agree that some inquirers may not be ready to handle some of our internal "issues" let's not whitewash who or what we are.

Thank you for your concern.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2006, 05:14:27 PM by Carpatho-Rusyn »

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

I think my main point is that the convert forum, in my opinion and as it was explained to me, is not the place to discuss these issues as they are more appropriately addressed in other areas. For example, I know that there are some who will in an extreme interpretation of the Balmond Agreement say that what GIC is saying is in agreement with the Balmond Agreement. We also know that the stance that a jurisdiction talkes on the Balmond Agreement will flavour the discussions from members of one Orthodox jurisdiction to another jurisdiction. I am hopeful that we can avoid these polemics in the convert forum and stick to the basics and leave these disagreements to the other forums mentioned. I see the convert forum as a more evangelical ministry of the the OC Net and thus should be less controversial nature or be an exhibition of Orthodox disunity at its worse . As a convert of over 18 years, I do not know if I would have looked at the Orthodox Church had I been presented the human imperfections of its members before I knew of the glory of its teachings and practice as it was taught by the Holy Fathers and Holy Tradition. I think this should be our focus on the Convert Forum. Forgive me if I have offended you dearest brother.

Sorry to give my humble opinion: isn't this blasphemy?Have this person ever read the story of Cornelius and St Peter?

Selecting people for the Church is monstruous.Didn't Jesus say "Follow me"? Who are you then to say who shouldn't join the Church?Catholics are not impure, there isn't anything impure!I can't believe it.

I for one agree with you. Please remember that there are many here on the forum who espouse different opinions. I have learned a lot from others here...however there are times when I must ignore some of the things written. 0ur Lord Jesus Christ comes first and foremost in our lives and it is only the failings of men who utter these unkind words. God be with you and don't let anyone prevent you from seeking His church.

Pride before the fall.........shouldn't seminarians, long time members of the church, be sensitive to inquirers, instead of getting caught up in all of this? My heart is saddened that Victoria is being exposed to this...it really isn't right, and it is getting more misconstrued. And it's not a matter of 'well, people should be informed of all of this' because that's NOT the "heart" of Orthodoxy, it is your opinion, and it is a battlefield now here. And, if you read Victoria's last post, it is stirring up a lot of emotion. Victoria, I deeply apologize. You have not had the greatest start in your search from the beginning, and I hope you know this isn't truly representative of Orthodox. Keep praying, keep up the search, you are in the right place, humbly looking for the 'love'.

Pride before the fall.........shouldn't seminarians, long time members of the church,ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ be sensitive to inquirers, instead of getting caught up in all of this?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ My heart is saddened that Victoria is being exposed to this...it really isn't right, and it is getting more misconstrued.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ And it's not a matter of 'well, people should be informed of all of this' because that's NOT the "heart" of Orthodoxy, it is your opinion, and it is a battlefield now here.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ And, if you read Victoria's last post, it is stirring up a lot of emotion. Victoria, I deeply apologize.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ You have not had the greatest start in your search from the beginning, and I hope you know this isn't truly representative of Orthodox.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Keep praying, keep up the search, you are in the right place, humbly looking for the 'love'.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡

Dear sister,

I agree with your sentiment but this is what happens all the time. Someone makes a blatently offensive statement. On one hand some feel the obligation to deal with it and then they take the heat from the self righteous who sit on the sidelines and talk about kindness. It's a no win situation really. You can say, well why not just let it roll of your back, but I think error should be exposed to the light and not allowed to fester in the darkness.

Now you all know what I am talking about so lets get it out in the open. At least for my clarification of thought, IS THERE ONE JURISDICTION RIGHT NOW THAT BELIEVES CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS CONVERTS? OR WAS THAT JUST THE SINGLE OPINION OF ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD?Because THAT one post will turn off many more inquirers than our little "squabble" clarifying it ever could.

In peace,Douglas Alexis

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Selecting people for the Church is monstruous.Didn't Jesus say "Follow me"? Who are you then to say who shouldn't join the Church?

Victoria, I can sympathize somewhat with your situation. When I first became an "Orthodox inquirer," I didn't live near enough to a church to become a catechumen. Fortunately I had plans to move, anyway, so I only had to wait a year or two before I could be in a parish.

Don't be too troubled by the brother's statements- I don't think he meant that Catholics are "impure," rather that the Catholic Church is Orthodox already so you don't need to convert. Not many Orthodox share his opinion, from what I can tell, and neither do I.

Ironically, however, when I couldn't visit an Orthodox church, I sometimes did go to Catholic mass or an Anglican service. I didn't take communion and it wasn't the same, at all, but we do what we have to do. In the meantime I also tried to learn as much about the Orthodox faith as I could. You're quite right that what we are searching for is Jesus Christ. In coming to know Him, there are no dead ends, and nothing that can stop us or keep us away.

If I were you, I would try to see the priest again. Tell him that you want to learn about the Orthodox faith and need to have someone to answer your questions. If he won't see you or puts you off again, try to find another Orthodox priest or deacon to talk to. Be patient and persistent.

I agree with what you said earlier, we who have an Orthodox community are lucky! I pray you can find the same, and peace in Jesus Christ in the meantime.

Now you all know what I am talking about so lets get it out in the open. At least for my clarification of thought, IS THERE ONE JURISDICTION RIGHT NOW THAT BELIEVES CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS CONVERTS? OR WAS THAT JUST THE SINGLE OPINION OF ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD?

The only jurisdiction who doesn't want conversion of the Catholics are the Catholics, so the answer to your question is the latter - a single opinion.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Excellent advice. The article clearly points our that our differences are more than just "administrative" misunderstandings to be solved by good hearted ecclesiastics. With the presence of a RC hierarchy which is so clearly enamored of the so-called Vatican II reforms, unity is clearly a long way away. Even those who admit that many ofÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ the 'reforms' were not in keeping with the 'spirit of Vatican II', i.e, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, I do not see one thing in Hopko's article that Rome would concede.

In many ways Vatican II brought Rome and Orthodoxy closer together, it opened the way to greater tolerance of each other, it established a respect that had been lost for centuries.

We hold essentially the same faith, the only disagreements are in administrative functions, technicalities of how patriarchs and their synods interact and how the patriarchs interact amongst themselves.

I do not back away from my position that to say the Church of Rome is the "canonical western church" is a fringe position, however.

Regardless of how mainstream (or not) you believe my position to be it is technically correct by the letter of the law, Rome and her authority was established by an Oecumenical Synod and ONLY an Oecumenical Synod can actually remove her from the Church, and only such a Synod, no imperial, endimousa, or pan-orthodox synod has this authority, for they are all subject to the 7 Synods.

Quote

It is a church that subsides both in heresy and schism, which makes the work of evangelism even more important then ecumenism. Our work should be to bring the Roman See back into the fullness of the orthodox catholic faith, not merely re-establish administrative unity. As Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople said, "When the Pope of Rome professes the orthodox faith, there will be unity."

And in what ways does Rome disagree with the essence of the Faith? And, no I'm not talking about liturgical preferences or administrative details. Where has she departed from the faith of the 7 Synods?

Thank you amnesiac for correcting your tone on your own. Guys please remember that this forum is the Convert Forum and please try to tone down polemics and passions to clearly present the faith in a positive tone to new converts and those inquirors seeking basic information and enlightment about all the ranges of orthodox belief and practices. If you have a problem with one jurisdictions practices versus another may I suggest that the Faith Forum or free-for-all or one of the new private discussion forums now available would be more appropriate and free-wheeling with less damage to those seeking basic information and adjustment to their new convert status.

Should not all who wish to convert be fully aware of all disputes and issues? Let them see it all upfront, and make up thier mind if they really want to convert. If the truth about the workings of the Church scares someone away it might be better for all involved if they do not convert. And I am far from the first to say such things, I have heard this said by many bishops. (I recall a story of a Bishop talking to now Bishop Kallistos Ware prior to his conversion, and this Bishop's advice was something to the effect, 'The Orthodox Church is the One, True, Historical, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but under no circumstances should you join it.' As the bishop then sent him back to the Anglicans, telling him to try and make peace with them if possible, obviously it was not but surely it was healthy to second guess such a big decision before it was made).

Sorry to give my humble opinion: isn't this blasphemy?Have this person ever read the story of Cornelius and St Peter?

Selecting people for the Church is monstruous.Didn't Jesus say "Follow me"? Who are you then to say who shouldn't join the Church?Catholics are not impure, there isn't anything impure!I can't believe it.

The argument I presented was not that Catholicism was impure, but just the opposite, that it is pure.

Pride before the fall.........shouldn't seminarians, long time members of the church,ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ be sensitive to inquirers, instead of getting caught up in all of this?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ My heart is saddened that Victoria is being exposed to this...it really isn't right, and it is getting more misconstrued.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ And it's not a matter of 'well, people should be informed of all of this' because that's NOT the "heart" of Orthodoxy, it is your opinion, and it is a battlefield now here.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ And, if you read Victoria's last post, it is stirring up a lot of emotion.

I argue from reason and not emotion, and I hope to be responded to in kind. If you object to the point that I made give me reasons why, dont just object on emotional grounds.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

In many ways Vatican II brought Rome and Orthodoxy closer together, it opened the way to greater tolerance of each other, it established a respect that had been lost for centuries.

Brother,

Tolerance and respect do not a marriage make. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were perhaps well meaning. The implementation of the Second Vatican Council was anything but Orthodox. The results of the council were innovation, novelty, and a loss of grace. We had more in common with the Catholic Church during the age of the Traditional Latin Mass. Now we have dirt in common. The mutual lifting of the excommunications in the 1960's was a nice administrative adjustment that accomplished nothing of substance. Like all cosmetics it washes off.

Regards,

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Tolerance and respect do not a marriage make. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were perhaps well meaning. The implementation of the Second Vatican Council was anything but Orthodox. The results of the council were innovation, novelty, and a loss of grace. We had more in common with the Catholic Church during the age of the Traditional Latin Mass. Now we have dirt in common. The mutual lifting of the excommunications in the 1960's was a nice administrative adjustment that accomplished nothing of substance. Like all cosmetics it washes off.

I've had this conversation with members of SSPX, which you unfortunately sound all to like, and none of them have ever really given me all that great of an answer, certainly not a convincing one, so here it goes, but perhaps you can...what exactly did Rome do at the Second Vatican Council that was so terribly heterodox and such an abandonment of the faith they held previously? All I see that came out of that council, was liturgical reform, with even the new eucharistic prayers having some historical source (there are numerous apologetics of this by Roman Catholics online that I could look up if necessary), plus they decided to be somewhat nicer to non-catholics, oh and the Pope stopped wearing his Tiara (and was no longer coronated)...I really dont see the great apostacy you seem to insist happened.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

...it is technically correct by the letter of the law, Rome and her authority was established by an Oecumenical Synod and ONLY an Oecumenical Synod can actually remove her from the Church, and only such a Synod, no imperial, endimousa, or pan-orthodox synod has this authority, for they are all subject to the 7 Synods.

You make an interesting observation, one that I've never heard (or even thought about) before.

Why hasn't this ever been adressed?

I am quite interested in hearing what everyone's thoughts on this are.

You make an interesting observation, one that I've never heard (or even thought about) before.

Why hasn't this ever been adressed?

I am quite interested in hearing what everyone's thoughts on this are.

It doesn't take a Synod to depose a heretic, for one. But strictly speaking, an Ecumenical Synod did condemn what became Romam doctrine! More striking is the fact that Rome was part of this Council, and agreed to it! This happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council* (Constantinople IV 879/880). This is not the Ignatian Council, the Roman pseudo-council which was condemned, but the later one, also nown as the Photian Council, which was fully Orthodox. Here is a link to a page explaining one major aspect aspect of this Council: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html

In the end, it was Rome which ended up condemning itself. Whatever the case, it is clear that the earlier Ecumenical Councils didn't keep Patriarchs that fell ito heresy around. A clear precedent was set: depose/excommunicate all those who fall into heresy, Patriarchs and laymen alike. The "legalistic loophool" that GiC pointed out is just that: a legalistic application of canons from a carefully seleted group of Councils in order to justify keeping heretical leaders in the Church.

*While we have a neat little package we call the "Seven Ecumenical Councils," there are others which the Church as a whole accepts.

Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

No synod expelled Judas, for Jesus appointed him, and the betrayal of Judas excluded him, regardless of whether the Apostle's knew of what was going on. Likewise, the bishops of the Church, through apostolic succession, were established by Jesus Christ (as the Church of Rome says explicitly in the First Century letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement). Thus, it is the same thing. If Rome falls, then Rome falls, no Ecumenical synod is needed to confirm this fall. Are we now going to say that Judas*, and countless heretics, are really still part of the Church, since they weren't formally excluded by the Church at an Ecumenical Council? There have only been seven (or perhaps nine) in nearly two thousands years of Christian history, and these one bunched up within a (roughly) four hundred year period. How could we possibly think that such a system is necessary? Are we saying that everyone who deviated from the faith since 787 is still part of the Church since they haven't been condemned by an Ecumenical Council?

* I do not mean to be comparing Catholics to Judas, I'm only bringing him up to help articulate why I think such comments as have been uttered on this thread are incorrect... I really don't have the patience to go even further into these issues though...

EDIT-- Ok, after signing offline for the night, I realised something and after telling myself that I wouldn't sign back online, here I am anyway. I have to be up for work in 6 1/2 hours, so I'll make this quick! I realised after signing off that the above didn't directly deal with the question at hand, since the question specifically was about a see appointed it's place by an Ecumenical Council. However, even on that point I think it fails on a few different grounds. No one, so far as I am aware, ever taught such a thing. Who was the first person in the Christian tradition to say that if an Ecumenical Council grants certain rights, that only an Ecumenical Council can take away those rights? And what is to be made of other (non-Ecumenical) councils, such as the one Bizzle brought up, which clearly believed things to be quite different? Rome was originally given it's place for political and cultural reasons, as well as spiritual ones. And if it has ceased being a bastion of Orthodoxy, there is no more need to prop it up as one of the five most important sees. Essentially, I don't understand where this belief came from that nothing (relative to the pentarchy) can be done without an Ecumenical Council authorizing it. Indeed, I wonder what GIC would deem an Ecumenical Council... would a Council excluding Rome be Ecumenical since you consider her part of the Church? And if Rome would have to participate, how could she ever be expected to exclude herself, and if she saw that that was going to be the conclusion, would she not simply declare the council a synod of robbers?

I've had this conversation with members of SSPX, which you unfortunately sound all to like, and none of them have ever really given me all that great of an answer, certainly not a convincing one, so here it goes, but perhaps you can...what exactly did Rome do at the Second Vatican Council that was so terribly heterodox and such an abandonment of the faith they held previously? All I see that came out of that council, was liturgical reform, with even the new eucharistic prayers having some historical source (there are numerous apologetics of this by Roman Catholics online that I could look up if necessary), plus they decided to be somewhat nicer to non-catholics, oh and the Pope stopped wearing his Tiara (and was no longer coronated)...I really dont see the great apostacy you seem to insist happened.

If I sound like an SSPXer, you are sounding more like a liberal ecumenical hot-tubber. (Let's al jump in the water's fine!)For the record, I'm not SSPX now, nor have I ever been. Nor have I ever attended an SSPX liturgy nor do I know any SSPX priests. I was educated in Catholic schools for 16+ years. Four of those were spent in a Roman Catholc College-Seminary and I spent three years after that in the NY Province Society of Jesus (Jesuits). They were hardly bastions of Roman Catholic Traditionalism. Please read my post carefully. I didn't say Vatican II was a heterodox council. While I have theological issues with the Decrees on Ecumenism and Religious Freedom, I said it was all in the implementation of the council that led to an increase in Roman Catholic heterodoxy. If you can't see it, you never will. If your conversations with SSPX members were to no avail I doubt any explanation of mine will ever convince you.

Regards.

PS. Its almost two hours later but i think I need to make something clear. I am Orthodox. The internal divisions, issues, and problems of the Roman Catholic Church concern me no more. I became Orthodox precisely because the Catholic Church is not. And I will end my participation in this discussion on that point.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2006, 04:50:26 PM by Carpatho-Rusyn »

Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Regardless of how mainstream (or not) you believe my position to be it is technically correct by the letter of the law, Rome and her authority was established by an Oecumenical Synod and ONLY an Oecumenical Synod can actually remove her from the Church, and only such a Synod, no imperial, endimousa, or pan-orthodox synod has this authority, for they are all subject to the 7 Synods.

While this is technically correct, there is an omission. While the other Patriarchates cannot depose the Bishop of Rome without an Oecumenical Synod, when he departed from the Orthodox faith we were justified in breaking communion with him, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod under St. Photios the Great. However, it is because of the above mentioned fact of the Authority of the Oecumenical Synods that we have never replaced the Bishop of Rome with an Orthodox Bishop, and leave the See intact. However, the fact that the See or Bishop cannot be deposed without an Oecumenical Synod does not change the fact that they are out of communion with the Orthodox. It's not enough to be a Bishop with Apostolic Succession in a Canonical See, Communion with the rest of the Church is even more essential.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

GIC, I want to apologize, she said at the beginning, she only wanted a yes or no to her question, and it was turning into a somewhat heated theology debate. I was very pained by her searching/seeking experience, and felt some TLC and encouragement, not theological debate, would have been better. It wasn't you persay, it was a general overall gut feeling it's not what she wanted or needed. So, sorry for putting my two cents in where it didn't really belong. At least from the experience, I know her name, and can pray for her.

As this topic in the forum is becoming contentious and beyond what the intent of the initial inquirory topic was I am closing it . Further expanison of this discussion may be started and further developed in the Orthodox-Catholic Forum or the Faith Forum.